Invitation for Controversy

A 9/11
truth conference devoted to controversy? Isn’t that repetitious and
redundant?

Many of us
in the 9/11 truth movement are tired of being controversial. We long for
consensus. We wish everyone could agree on the obvious: The official story
of 9/11 is a fraud, and we need a new and genuine investigation ASAP.

So why
court controversy? Why give a platform to people like mechanical engineer
Judy Wood, whose hypothesis that some form of directed-energy weapon
contributed to the demolition of the Twin Towers appears, to many,
highly improbable? Why listen to Bush’s former Chief Labor Department
Economist
Morgan Reynolds, who argues that some or all of the purported videos of
the planes hitting the Twin Towers cannot possibly be authentic? Why honor
Dave Von Kleist, whose documentary In Plane Site argues that the
very videos Reynolds says are phony show pods on the bottom of the alleged
passenger jets, suggesting that militarily-modified aircraft hit the
Towers?

All of
these hypotheses are considered by a great many 9/11 skeptics to be
somewhere between marginal and ridiculous. Yet Woods is a highly qualified
engineer, Reynolds an accomplished scholar and acerbic writer, and Von
Kleist an articulate, charismatic speaker and talented documentary director.
All three have sensible views about the preponderance of evidence showing
9/11 to be an inside job—yet all three spend inordinate time and energy
championing what many consider to be wacky, politically-counterproductive
theories. What should we do with such people?

Perhaps a
bit of perspective is called for. Overwhelming evidence indicates that 9/11
was the “New Pearl Harbor” that PNAC called for in their September, 2000
manifesto Rebuilding America’s Defenses. The precise details of how
the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were demolished, and the precise techniques used
to generate the ridiculous cover story that the demolitions were the result
of plane crashes and fires, are of secondary importance.

So why get
excited about the theories of Wood, Reynolds and Von Kleist? While I can see
why Wood, Reynolds and Von Kleist are themselves excited—they think they
have pioneered critically important new avenues of investigation—I fail to
see why their harshest critics waste so much time and energy deriding them
on the internet.

Those who
think that Wood, Reynolds and Von Kleist are either crazy or disinfo agents
really ought to show a little more open-minded curiosity. What could lead
such apparently sane, qualified people to such madness/treason?
Or...(gasp)...could their heretical opinions actually be sane responses to
apparent evidence? Is it conceivable that (double-gasp) they might even be
barking up the right tree? If we do get a real investigation, and it turns
out that at least one of these three heretics was at least partially right,
will you survive the shock? Remember the lesson of the Salon des Refusés:

Those
“several important paintings” and the artists who painted them were not
recognized as important until much later. Few at the time—least of all the
judges at the Salon de Paris—could tell the difference between the important
paintings and the ones worthy of ridicule. They simply rejected all
paintings that “looked ridiculous”—meaning that stood outside of the
dominant artistic conventions of the moment.

Similar
situations have arisen repeatedly in the history of science. Theories that
“looked ridiculous” because they stood outside of the dominant paradigm
often really were ridiculous. As Groucho said of Chico, “My brother may look
like an idiot, and he may talk like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you—he
really is an idiot.” Yet some of these “ridiculous” theories later
turned out to be true. From the Copernican overthrow of the geocentric
universe, to the quantum mechanical disproof of “objective material
reality,” yesterday’s common sense has all too often proven wrong.

The same
holds for the history of the 9/11 truth movement. In the early days, those
arguing that the WTC had been demolished, or that the whole story of
“hijackings” appeared to be bogus, were often derided as fools or disinfo
agents. The effect was to slow the growth of the movement, preserve the myth
of the “evil Arab-Muslim hijackers,” and enable the slaughter of more than
half a million people. In hindsight, it is obvious that it was the go-slowers,
not the early discerners of all-too-obvious controlled demolitions, who were
knowingly or not, objectively serving the interests of the 9/11
perpetraitors.

In
recognition of their talents and qualifications, and regardless of what we
think of their most controversial theories, I suggest we extend a warm
welcome to Wood, Reynolds and Von Kleist, along with the others who will be
exhibiting at the Madison Salon des 9/11 Refusés, all of whom have
been the subject of controversy:

Kevin
Barrett,
the guy Fox News loves to hate, made national news by denying that he had
compared Bush to Hitler: “That would be unfair to Hitler, who had at
least 30 IQ points on Bush.” His fourth book’s working title is Unfair to
Hitler: Why the Neocons Are Worse than the Nazis. Barrett has raised the
hackles of the Secret Service and many 9/11 activists with his satirical
calls for the execution of top US officials. (See
here,
here and
here.)

Jim Fetzer’s
loquacious, boisterous, cantankerous and occasionally obstreperous
tendencies sometimes land him in hot water with fellow JFK and 9/11
researchers. He enjoys inviting Steve Jones on his radio show and then not
letting him talk.

Frank
Greening,
Ph.D., physical chemistry, has been
mocked,
jeered and
derided as an Official Conspiracy Theorist for his heroic attempts to
show that the NIST report on the destruction of the Twin Towers could
conceivably be true. As the only major scientist to date who has made a
serious attempt to defend NIST, it is surely significant that Greening, in a
fit of intellectual honesty,
has backed off and now considers himself an agnostic rather than a
supporter of the official story.

Jerry
Leaphart
is a civil rights lawyer was the moving force behind the use of the DataQuality
Act to submit a
Request for Correction to the NIST report. He played a controversial
role in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth controversies.

Rick Ratjer,
currently completing a Ph.D. in MaterialsScience
and Engineering at MIT, has collaborated withMorgan
Reyonds in
several controversial studies suggesting there were no bigplane
crashes on 9/11.

If you have
a bone to pick with any of these people, by all means please come to Madison
and take it up with them in person. It is easier to get a sense of what kind
of person you’re dealing with by talking to them in person, face to face,
rather than through internet flame wars. You may discover that the person
you thought was a nut or a plant is actually a perfectly nice, sensible
individual who just happens to be wrong about one or two things. Who knows,
you may even learn that some controversial idea is not as crazy as it looks.
Or you may learn that so-and-so, as Groucho says, “really is an
idiot.”

So come on
down to beautiful Madison, Wisconsin for “The Science of 9/11: What’s
Controversial, What’s Not,” August 3-5 2007. Official announcement and
registration info
here.

Please
Support MUJCA-NET MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a
non-profit organization and the scale of our activities depends
entirely on your generosity. We would like to get copies of David
Griffin's two 9/11 books (see above) into the hands of every
religious leader in America. And we would like to push 9/11 truth
onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't do
it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET,
click here.